Gun Control - A what-if scenario

Would you support this proposal

  • Yes

    Votes: 38 23.5%
  • No - The only change I would support is the repeal of ALL gun-specific laws

    Votes: 81 50.0%
  • No - But if they allowed new machine guns to become part of legal NFA items I would

    Votes: 7 4.3%
  • No - For some other reason below.

    Votes: 36 22.2%

  • Total voters
    162
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
6,130
Likes
1,434
Location
Presidential ANTIFA Protection Bunker
What if there was a proposal at the national level to comprehensively reform gun laws nation wide. The proposal would contain the following items gun owners want:

  • Federally mandated national concealed carry reciprosity
  • Elimination of assault weapons bans - pre-94 configuations legal nationwide
  • Licenses would be shall issue
  • Elimination of other arbitrary local restrictions (MA pistol laws, etc.)

...BUT it would also require the following...

  • License is required to purchase pistols and any rifle with a detachable magazine
  • A background check would be required for private sales and transfers would have to be documented
 
Rating - 100%
55   0   0
Joined
Jan 13, 2009
Messages
30,781
Likes
8,655
Location
free hampshire
too many opportunities to shit on people with background checks and licenses. very easy to reclassify individuals to fit into the arbitrary "unsuitable" category. suddenly being anti-government will mean you can be unofficially diagnosed as being paranoid and potentially violent... boom, no gun for you. you're now a bad guy.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
60   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
71,304
Likes
32,942
It'd die within about 5 minutes of introduction because the anti states would vote against it (they'd lose control within their urban fiefdoms) and at least 20-30 or so, very solid pro gun states would never suck for the 2 requirements you just mentioned, particularly the whole "license" business, whereas in like 40+ states such a special license is not required. That's a pretty bad concession that clearly poison pills the whole thing.

The license thing is especially bad because it also implies you'd have to have the license to even possess the gun you just bought. Nobody in their right mind wants to have MA's poop cast nationwide.

ETA: Another problem with this proposal is like 75% of the country is already getting the first 4 things you mention "for free, by default" so why would anyone want to give anything up for it? It's like some indians trading land for blankets with smallpox on it and a handful of glass beads. [laugh]

-Mike
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
29   0   0
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
13,740
Likes
2,156
Most of what you propose does not currently affect 38 states in the nation. Why would anyone sign on to this?
 
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Sep 19, 2013
Messages
4,251
Likes
728
Location
North shore, MA
What if there was a proposal at the national level to comprehensively reform gun laws nation wide. The proposal would contain the following items gun owners want:

  • Federally mandated national concealed carry reciprosity
  • Elimination of assault weapons bans - pre-94 configuations legal nationwide
  • Licenses would be shall issue
  • Elimination of other arbitrary local restrictions (MA pistol laws, etc.)

...BUT it would also require the following...

  • License is required to purchase pistols and any rifle with a detachable magazine
  • A background check would be required for private sales and transfers would have to be documented
Ok, this starts with an erroneous presumption: that states will allow the feds to dictate lesser gun laws to them. California, NJ, NY, CT, MA and MD won't let that happen. (Did I miss any in there? Might have...)

You're also going off the presumption that all gun owners want the things you list in the beginning of your post. They don't. I certainly don't want national reciprocity and I can guarantee you that most of the fudds out there don't want AWB's lifted or shall issue licenses.

Having addressed that, federally mandated reciprocity is a terrible idea. You would wind up spending 2-3 weeks in class, paying hundreds of dollars and then would still be severely limited in where you could car
ry.

A license to purchase pistols and rifles and mandatory background checks are unconstitutional. (as are the other things you brought up, but let's focus on the two "gifts" we would receive) Requiring a license to purchase a firearm and mandatory background checks would shortly segue into registration for all firearms-->confiscation of the "evil" ones.

It's a terrible idea. I can't say enough bad things about it.
 

Beansie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Jul 23, 2014
Messages
1,319
Likes
231
Not as written, hell no.

Would have to sweeten the pot on the "win for us" side (like option 3) and also heavily restrict government on the "loss for us" side of the proposal.

But like was mentioned, there is a free America when it comes to firearms, not sure they wouldn't be pissed here because they are losing a lot more than we would be.
 

MisterHappy

NES Member
Rating - 100%
15   0   0
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
21,743
Likes
6,767
Location
On the 16 yard line, shootin' for the Lewis!
when you allow "some" control, you allow ALL control.

Who would decide what constitutes the requirements for the license? In Mass, a Hunter Ed certificate is statutorily acceptable for LTC/FID issue, but some towns will not accept it. Should those people decide what's acceptable?

Who does the background check? What is the cost of this? Is it instant, or is it as efficient as the LTC issuance in Mass?

This is the problem with "reasonable restrictions" - even if they are "reasonable" at the start, they inevitably creep. Like the FID that was indefinite unless suspended or revoked, and shall issue. Until it wasn't.

Oh, and if you have the license, proving that you're a good guy, why is an additional check be needed.
 

wahsben

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
34   0   0
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
11,005
Likes
3,999
Location
Ma.
NO! Gun control only benefits tyrants, criminals and madmen. Also there is a way to do a background check called BID that doesn't identify the law abiding. The fact that the govt. doesn't use it shows the purpose of background checks is for registration not safety.
 
Last edited:

wahsben

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
34   0   0
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
11,005
Likes
3,999
Location
Ma.
Sadly some people just feel the need to be controlled and to control others. No where has gun control been a success and in some places it has actually made things worse yet they believe somehow someway that criminals will obey the law.

I can't believe that as of this writing, 18.75% voted yes. We have a fifth column amongst us. Far worse than I thought. I'd have guessed 5%ish.
 

DispositionMatrix

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Messages
3,799
Likes
1,109
Location
SoNH
It is important to keep in mind ban states would be willing to effectively nullify federal law, just as NY and NJ effectively nullify FOPA and MA effectively nullifies 2A entirely. So even if those states signed on to your proposed standards, they would not comply with them when the time came for implementation.
 

Horrible

NES Member
Rating - 100%
16   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
11,623
Likes
3,390
Location
Central MA
I don't trust Dems. I can see them setting a trap to repeal certain things in exchange for other new restrictions and then turn around and re-instate the repealed restrictions.

All you need to do is look at the deals that Reagan and Bush 43 made with them regarding taxes. In case you don't know, the Dems never really kept up their end of the deal.
 
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
6,130
Likes
1,434
Location
Presidential ANTIFA Protection Bunker
It is important to keep in mind ban states would be willing to effectively nullify federal law, just as NY and NJ effectively nullify FOPA and MA effectively nullifies 2A entirely. So even if those states signed on to your proposed standards, they would not comply with them when the time came for implementation.
The logistics of passing this aren't really what I care about (this time around). Totally excellent points made on that front, but what I'm more interested in is IF we could get buy in from all the states to abide by this, what would be an acceptable trade off (or is there even an acceptable trade off) to gun owners in New England.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
60   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
71,304
Likes
32,942
The logistics of passing this aren't really what I care about (this time around). Totally excellent points made on that front, but what I'm more interested in is IF we could get buy in from all the states to abide by this, what would be an acceptable trade off (or is there even an acceptable trade off) to gun owners in New England.
Well, that's the problem.... the rest of the country is gonna tell us to go **** ourselves (and rightly so) even if we thought this was somehow a good idea. There are literally only a handful of places where most of the things in the preface of the proposal are a problem. Most people don't deal with any of this crap that we do... so they get nothing out of the deal, and lose a lot.

-Mike
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
4,247
Likes
1,140
Location
In the 603
...what would be an acceptable trade off (or is there even an acceptable trade off) to gun owners in New England.
The problem with this is that there are such varied degrees of oppression just in New England, from draconian Mass, to pretty decent Maine, to outright wild west in Vermont. Each state, and in some cases (e.g. Boston vs the rest of Ma) different parts of one state, has it's own issues and thresholds that must be met before gun owners there feel like they're getting something out of the deal.
 
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
10,785
Likes
1,881
Location
Grid 17S with bugout longterm shelter and great fi
Obamama is going to rule with executive action and my guess is mandatory background checks and formal transfer regarding all sales. Here in N.C., like in most states, private sales only require a form of state ID showing age and residency on long arm sales. Handgun sales require only a CCW or pistol purchase permit and state ID to be exchanged with the seller, no background check or transfer required.
I hope I am wrong.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
60   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
71,304
Likes
32,942
Obamama is going to rule with executive action and my guess is mandatory background checks and formal transfer regarding all sales.

Lol good luck to him on that.

-Mike
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
6,130
Likes
1,434
Location
Presidential ANTIFA Protection Bunker
Well, that's the problem.... the rest of the country is gonna tell us to go **** ourselves (and rightly so) even if we thought this was somehow a good idea. There are literally only a handful of places where most of the things in the preface of the proposal are a problem. Most people don't deal with any of this crap that we do... so they get nothing out of the deal, and lose a lot.

-Mike
Of course, but national elections aren't just decided by gun owners and hardcore antis. I agree that people in free states would get nothing out of the deal but, then, like knfmn said, that's based on the assumption that all gun owners want the same things. Fudds might very well support increased control in their state...

I'm not getting such a huge gun control fever vibe from this mass shooting, which is good, but what frightens me the most is more states having laws like MA where its almost impossible to comply even if you want to comply. Then you have NY that you can't even drive through with a gun without potentially getting jammed up.
 

Beansie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Jul 23, 2014
Messages
1,319
Likes
231
What else would you want besides the elimination on the restriction of new machine guns? What else would sweeten the pot?
What do I want, or what would politically possible?

Just throwing out some ideas here:
Cans don't' need a stamp.
No need for a stamp for a semi-auto SBR
ATF can't restrict non-explosive ammo
Any additional restrictions 2nd amendment related need a 2/3rd's vote in both houses...


I'm just tossing stuff out, I might come up with more later. I was speaking more in line of "what will actually get people to be okay with this" rather than, "what do I personally want to see happen". There is some cross over, but... Ultimately different things. I'm certainly not sitting here thinking we need MORE restrictions on the citizens. Restrictions on .gov? Sure.
 
Rating - 100%
29   0   0
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
13,740
Likes
2,156
Repeal Hughes.
Justice Dept processes NFA only for mg's, DD's, & maybe AOW's.
Ban the ATF.
Else what Beansie wrote.
 
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
6,130
Likes
1,434
Location
Presidential ANTIFA Protection Bunker
The problem with this is that there are such varied degrees of oppression just in New England, from draconian Mass, to pretty decent Maine, to outright wild west in Vermont. Each state, and in some cases (e.g. Boston vs the rest of Ma) different parts of one state, has it's own issues and thresholds that must be met before gun owners there feel like they're getting something out of the deal.
Yea, totally. I think that's why I'm interested in NE opinions especially...since there is so much variation in such a small area and complying can be a legitimate pain in the ass.

I haven't voted either way, but there are a couple posts here which I think make very good points on why this would be undesirable. One thing I do think would be valuable is consistency, though. What I wonder is, is there some concession we could give to the liberals that most of us would accept to shut down their most common talking points in exchange for that consistency.
 
Rating - 100%
29   0   0
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
13,740
Likes
2,156
Oh yeah, ban gun free zones.
Signs do not have force of lawr.
Roll back all import restrictions.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
60   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
71,304
Likes
32,942
When was the last time an executive order was struck down? Ever?
If Obama really had that kind of sweeping power he would have used it already after sandy hookmaster BS happened. EOs are limited in scope and authority.

-Mike
 
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
6,130
Likes
1,434
Location
Presidential ANTIFA Protection Bunker
What do I want, or what would politically possible?

Just throwing out some ideas here:
Cans don't' need a stamp.
No need for a stamp for a semi-auto SBR
ATF can't restrict non-explosive ammo
Any additional restrictions 2nd amendment related need a 2/3rd's vote in both houses...


I'm just tossing stuff out, I might come up with more later. I was speaking more in line of "what will actually get people to be okay with this" rather than, "what do I personally want to see happen". There is some cross over, but... Ultimately different things. I'm certainly not sitting here thinking we need MORE restrictions on the citizens. Restrictions on .gov? Sure.
Basically, "what would you need to shut down the liberal's most common concerns".

I think these are all really really good wins to require.
 
Top Bottom